Jump to content
The Computer Audiophile

Article: Why Can't Music Artists Do This?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Agree that the ridiculous soap opera effect is an epidemic in the flatscreen tv world (my sister's new tv had it and we spent quite a bit of time finding the damn toggle setting).  And agree that Neil is a unique spokesperson for high quality audio...we need more of them. 

 

While I'm no fan of Tom Cruise's life choices, his acting is usually quite good!  Hell, he played Jack Reacher (6'5" large blond character in the books) and made it work ok.  :)  And one of my fave movies of 2014 was his Edge of Tomorrow, a guilty pleasure sci-fi piece of great movie entertainment.

 

Back on subject, the issue with audio optimization is that it is not a simple setting or toggle switch (as the hundreds of thousands of CA posts prove out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a few new flat screen TV s being immediately horrified by the soap opera effect.   Found and turned it off. In the three cases so far they looked at it and wanted me to put it back like it was. The last being my cousin's new tv over Thanksgiving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've disabled motion smoothing on panels owned by friends and family. 

 

I could never believe the feature was enabled by default and don't understand how anyone could watch a panel with it enabled. 

 

It also drives me crazy when panels are set to vivid or some other overly cranked mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, we had a conversation similar to this on ComputerAudiophile back in 2008.

 

 

The conversation was swiftly (and somewhat ruthlessly) gunned down by various technical replies - perhaps because I erronously referred to "upscaling" and its effects, when I should have perhaps referred to interpolation software and its effects.

 

But the basic consideration of that 2008 post remains valid: the effect of predictive algorhythms "filling in" information which isn't actually there...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iansen said:

But the basic consideration of that 2008 post remains valid: the effect of predictive algorhythms "filling in" information which isn't actually there...

Er... but soap opera effect exists also for genuine 60 fps recordings (I presume), so how is this the "filling in" algorithm fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a nice interview with electronic artist Robert Henke aka Monolake about having no compression on his album "Silence".  OK, he's not exactly the type of massive artist (outside of the rareified confines of minimal techno) whom Chris wishes would step forwards

 

http://www.carosnatch.com/2010/02/monolake-interview-producing-an-album-with-no-compression/

 

But in another interview, he actually says

"I'm not willing to take part in that race for loudness anymore, because it is so damn redundant at the end of the day. Each amplifier has a volume knob."

 

http://www.monolake.de/interviews/mastering.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, iansen said:

But the basic consideration of that 2008 post remains valid: the effect of predictive algorhythms "filling in" information which isn't actually there...

 

Done properly, the information is actually there. There's a close analogy in audio: the NOS filterless DAC. There are claims that, like 24 fps video, this is closer to the original source. But consider this:


Start with the original analog signal. The ADC samples it at regular intervals. Between those intervals, the analog signal continues to vary. The DAC converter stage then has to accurately reproduce the sample values at the same regular intervals in time. Competent DACs can do that, even filterless. The difference is in what happens in between the sample intervals. A filterless DAC outputs the same value for a whole sample period. A properly filtered DAC produces values in between the sample periods that accurately match the original analog values that existed between the samples.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

Done properly, the information is actually there. There's a close analogy in audio: the NOS filterless DAC. There are claims that, like 24 fps video, this is closer to the original source. But consider this:


Start with the original analog signal. The ADC samples it at regular intervals. Between those intervals, the analog signal continues to vary. The DAC converter stage then has to accurately reproduce the sample values at the same regular intervals in time. Competent DACs can do that, even filterless. The difference is in what happens in between the sample intervals. A filterless DAC outputs the same value for a whole sample period. A properly filtered DAC produces values in between the sample periods that accurately match the original analog values that existed between the samples.

 

 

 

 

NOS DACs:

 

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/11/nos-vs-digital-filtering-dacs-exploring.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was during last year’s talk at RMAF that I posited the very same question. When I saw this, I immediately thought of Nolan and his discussions around color calibration, and how he insists that you really need to pay attention to your home setup so you can best enjoy his films. We simply have nothing on the audio / music / HiFi side of the business. Sorry, Neil Young is not a trendsetter anymore even as I appreciate his enthusiasm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×